Blu-ray, HD-DVD & HD Broadcasts(H.264 & MPEG-2) Screenshots*BIG FILES* - Page 22 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #631 of 2128 Old 05-28-2007, 09:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vincent Pereira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Monmouth County, NJ
Posts: 515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_TC View Post

I agree, this is very strange. As others have pointed out the right hand side of the frame resolves more detail in the HD DVD version.

But that doesn't change my opinion by much at all. Yes, the broadcast version has some nasty edge enhancement and the bitrates produce a bit of artifacts and noise, but despite all that it still looks considerably more filmlike/35mm to me than the HD DVD version.

Yikes...

Call the Broadcast version anything you like, but DO NOT call it "film like". Those edgy, overpumped, noisy images are the antithesis of what film looks like.

Vincent
Vincent Pereira is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #632 of 2128 Old 05-28-2007, 10:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_TC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

Call the Broadcast version anything you like, but DO NOT call it "film like". Those edgy, overpumped, noisy images are the antithesis of what film looks like.

I said it looks more filmlike. Which isn't a huge achievement, seeing how the HD DVD is smeary, overcontrasted and completely grain free.

I love HD DVD, but I don't own Mission Impossible, and after seeing these screenshots I don't think I want to buy it, even though I like the movie.
Chris_TC is offline  
post #633 of 2128 Old 05-28-2007, 11:04 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_TC View Post

I said it looks more filmlike. Which isn't a huge achievement, seeing how the HD DVD is smeary, overcontrasted and completely grain free.

I love HD DVD, but I don't own Mission Impossible, and after seeing these screenshots I don't think I want to buy it, even though I like the movie.

I suppose I should weigh in here.

What you are seeing in the HBO version is compression noise, not detail, for the most part. Also, there is COPIOUS amounts of Edge Enhancement in the HBO version. Just compare the wooden bar across the inside of the store window in the top left corner of the below images...

However, there is also more to this frame than meets the eye.

I think you have managed to capture the HBO version pretty much right on an i-frame, where there is the maximum detail available, while the HD DVD version appears to be in-between.

So yes, in this shot, there may appear to be slightly more details in the HBO version, but that is NOT typical of the majority of the film, but simply a result of the moment captured.

However, anyone can tell that the image looks far more natural (and better) in the HD DVD version. What you call "overpumped" is nothing of the sort, just better. The Mpeg version from HBO just looks "washed out" in comparison.

But again, I'm sure that if someone were to look at a few frames before or after this particular frame, you would find an i-frame in the HD DVD version also, and I'll bet that the detail would far surpass this particlur Mpeg i-frame.

HBO mpeg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HD DVD . . . . . . . . . . . . .
rdjam is offline  
 
post #634 of 2128 Old 05-29-2007, 03:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_TC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Just compare the wooden bar across the inside of the store window in the top left corner of the below images...

Interesting you point that out. Yes, just like the entire movie it's oversharpened in the broadcast version, but in the HD DVD version it's a blurry mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

What you call "overpumped" is nothing of the sort, just better. The Mpeg version from HBO just looks "washed out" in comparison.

I call it overcontrasted because it is overcontrasted. If details vanish in the blacks then the contrast is too high.

Why can I see texture detail on the large dark bag in the HBO version but not in the HD DVD version where the bag is just a black splotch?
Why does the orange bag, the sidewalk and in fact the entire image look like an aquarelle painting in the HD DVD version?
Chris_TC is offline  
post #635 of 2128 Old 05-29-2007, 04:24 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_TC View Post

I call it overcontrasted because it is overcontrasted. If details vanish in the blacks then the contrast is too high.

Why can I see texture detail on the large dark bag in the HBO version but not in the HD DVD version where the bag is just a black splotch?
Why does the orange bag, the sidewalk and in fact the entire image look like an aquarelle painting in the HD DVD version?

Not being funny, here, but seriously, turn your monitor brightness up and/or reduce your contrast settings. On my calibrated screen, there are no details "disappearing into the black". But when I turn my brightness down, I suddenly see what you might be talking about.
rdjam is offline  
post #636 of 2128 Old 05-29-2007, 06:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_TC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
No thanks. I work in 3d and graphics design and have no incentive to change my screen settings.

But where's your explanation for the aquarelle look?
Chris_TC is offline  
post #637 of 2128 Old 05-30-2007, 09:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

I think you have managed to capture the HBO version pretty much right on an i-frame, where there is the maximum detail available, while the HD DVD version appears to be in-between.

I hope this doesn't become a trend. You said the same thing about We Were Soldiers comparison where the vc-1 clearly underperformed (mpeg-2 wasn't so hot either though). Can't it just be that it just sucks and is not related to being an I frame or a B frame? The other screenshots are smoothed over so it's not that far fetched that the street shot is the same.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #638 of 2128 Old 05-31-2007, 03:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Sean_O's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlsbad, CA.
Posts: 1,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_TC View Post

No thanks. I work in 3d and graphics design and have no incentive to change my screen settings.

But where's your explanation for the aquarelle look?

You aren't the only one around here who works with graphics... check your display. There is no black level problem in that particular screen capture, certainly no less detail, and much less noise with proper saturation levels.

As for the "aquarelle" look (there's a fancy word for garden variety watercolor) my bet is on softness or blur from the original optics. The subject(s) looks to be at a distance, or not the primary focus of the shot.

That MPEG2 capture looks terrible in comparison. If that HD DVD capture looks like aquarelle, then that HBO HD capture looks like Lego art.
Sean_O is offline  
post #639 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 02:29 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Xylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Liecheinstein
Posts: 7,204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Flags Of Our Father

32.90 GB AVC ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ 20.80 GB VC-1
Xylon is offline  
post #640 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 02:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Xylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Liecheinstein
Posts: 7,204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Xylon is offline  
post #641 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 02:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Grubert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Great work Xylon.

Splitting hairs really, but it seems the AVC is indeed a teeny little bit more detailed. For example, on the first picture, on the right of the newspaper I can make out the word 'Thousands' on the image on the left but not on the right.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Grubert is offline  
post #642 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 03:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_TC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_O View Post

As for the "aquarelle" look (there's a fancy word for garden variety watercolor) my bet is on softness or blur from the original optics.

From the original optics, OMG. If you can't see that this is terrible DNR in action then it's pointless discussing this any further.
Chris_TC is offline  
post #643 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 03:22 AM
Senior Member
 
Dot50Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
We need more action scenes Xylon! Please! Fast moving cameras! That said, the higher bitrate of the AVC encode helps. While the VC1 shows macroblocking, and smearing. AVC on top, VC1 on bottom.

In the first shot:



The left soldiers leg. The middle soldiers shoe. The top of the rock, which all display macroblocking on the VC1 encode.

Second shot:



The audience becomes a mess of smeared blocks which you would expect from streaming video in the VC1 encode.

Third shot:



Truck details are smoothed, Field is smoothed, giving way to macroblocks and smearing. People become globs on th VC1 encode.

I'd really love to see some intense scenes, it will really bring out the different between the two bitrates. If you could Xylon, get some heavy action scenes with lots of camera motion!
Dot50Cal is offline  
post #644 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 03:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_TC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_O View Post

As for the "aquarelle" look (there's a fancy word for garden variety watercolor) my bet is on softness or blur from the original optics. The subject(s) looks to be at a distance, or not the primary focus of the shot.

You said you work with graphics. Then have you never run a noise reduction filter in Photoshop? Here, this image was posted by Xylon, it's a still from Stargate.

The original image is on the left, the image on the right was noise reduced in Photoshop, and the contrasts were overcranked. Look familiar?
Chris_TC is offline  
post #645 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sound dropouts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
FWIW, I see more macroblocking in the night sky above the soldier's heads in the AVC version of flags of our fathers..
sound dropouts is offline  
post #646 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 05:14 AM
Senior Member
 
Dot50Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sound dropouts View Post

FWIW, I see more macroblocking in the night sky above the soldier's heads in the AVC version of flags of our fathers..

I think you're looking at the pictures in the wrong order or you are seeing the noise reduction (looks like thats what it is anyway) thats present in the master. The AVC one just preserves it more while the VC1 encode smears, blocks and adds posterization to it.

Gamma adjusted the same amount on both shots to illustrate the point, blown up nearly 2x (AVC on top, VC1 on bottom):



The whole sky is mess with the VC1 encode. Also Xylon, it looks like the HD-DVD version has a bit of a red tint to it while the Blu-ray one has a green tint. Any indication if this is how the films are or was this a levels error?
Dot50Cal is offline  
post #647 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 07:13 AM
Member
 
totsugeki's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_TC View Post

No thanks. I work in 3d and graphics design and have no incentive to change my screen settings.

But where's your explanation for the aquarelle look?

You can easily check the dark details without touching the monitor controls. Just boost the gamma of the image.

Also, I'd like to express my disapproval of blowing up the images using nearest neighbor resampling. Pixels are not little squares, they're samples, which are reconstructed for playback. Nearest neighbor is a bad reconstruction filter. Bicubic or Lanczos would be more appropriate. Using nearest neighbor resampling is akin to listening to digital music with the DAC's reconstruction filter removed.

As for the softness in some of the VC-1 screencaps being blamed on frames not being I-frames: only one in every ~10-20 frames is an I-frame. If the predicted frames actually were softer than the I-frames, it would imply that the picture is sharp only 5-10% of the time. Also, it would imply that VC-1 suffers from "pulsing", where picture quality "pumps" up and down rapidly (good quality on I-frames, worse quality on predicted frames).

I hope the Moscow State University people (compression.ru) include VC-1 in their next codec comparison. An objective test would put all the speculation to rest.
totsugeki is offline  
post #648 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 09:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 87
And dont really understand the point by adjusting the gamma on the picture. Movies are meant to be watched on a calibrated display.

If you adjust colors and gamma, compression issues will be shown . Thats why you dont like to record movies to format like this.

If you look at both pictures (the large ones) above, both show almost exaltcy the same image, both look like top quality. And that how they gonna look for the viewer. They are not loosless. So if you try real hard you will find issues. But not when you sit back and watch the movies.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #649 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 09:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 98
On the same note, the compression quality of the picture should be robust enough to, not only look correct on a calibrated screen, but not breakdown when viewed on a screen that has a less than ideal (not wildly off) calibration. Similarly, the artifacts should not just be on the verge of perceptibility on just a calibrated screen, but some degree beyond even that, so they don't come out en masse just because someone has their contrast or sharpness up a notch or so.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #650 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 10:55 AM
Member
 
slide83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So Microsoft's marketing of VC-1 being "transparent" to the master at those bitrates isn't so true afterall, huh?
slide83 is offline  
post #651 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 01:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsugeki View Post

Also, I'd like to express my disapproval of blowing up the images using nearest neighbor resampling. Pixels are not little squares, they're samples, which are reconstructed for playback. Nearest neighbor is a bad reconstruction filter. Bicubic or Lanczos would be more appropriate. Using nearest neighbor resampling is akin to listening to digital music with the DAC's reconstruction filter removed.

By using bicubic or lanczoz you are not looking at the image on the pixel level anymore. You're looking at a smoothed over representation. The reason why I and a few others use nearest neighbor at 2x or 3x is because we can see what's going on with these codecs at a very close up level without interpolation.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #652 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 01:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 98
I think the sample of lanczoz, as demonstrated on Wiki, even cites that a side perk of using this processing is that it can remove some kinds of compression artifacts from the input material.

On that point, it should be noted that this sort of filtering could be desirable for playback presentation, but not so helpful when it comes to analysis.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #653 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 01:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bobgpsr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Posts: 2,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It seems like this thread is going into "counting angels dancing on the end of a pin" territory with this need of using nearest neighbor to make a big magnifying nitpick glass. But I guess it is not a lot different than being 6" away from a 120" screen driven by a 1080p non-crt projector.
bobgpsr is offline  
post #654 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 02:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Filtered or not enough bits? Well, with 10 fewer gbs to play with something has to give. The horizontal lines are either softened or completely gone in the vc-1 shot. Disappointing. VC-1 is the mpeg-2 here.


There are differences all through-out the night screengrab. Really too many to go thru. The frieze at the top of the stadium, the people on the field, the crowd, etc. The avc shot has dramatically better compression compared to the vc-1. IMO, it's a lot like the difference between a lower medium quality and a near high quality jpeg. While most people won't notice or care about these improvements which would you rather pay for?

It's ironic that the HD-DVD version seems to have a red cast to it. How did that get in there?
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #655 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 02:38 PM
msv
Member
 
msv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany, BW
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
msv is offline  
post #656 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 03:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,959
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

That same logic can apply to almost every comparison made here. But it seems like when VC1 is shown to be inferior then we need to start making excuses or just accuse people of nitpicking minor details.

I think it's been the MPEG2 proponents who have been making up the excuses all along.

There is no question that AVC is superior to VC1 in this example, due to the extra bits used.

It is, however, a valid question on whether the difference could be seen with the naked eye under normal viewing conditions.
jmpage2 is offline  
post #657 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 03:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Yah, if you are going to compare vc-1 to mpeg-2, but then only pick comparisons where the mpeg-2 is compressed down to 0.9x to as low as 0.54x, that's an "excuse".

For the real world, it is just bringing relevant facts to the table.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #658 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 03:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If normal viewing conditions are 1.5-2x screen widths away from a 1080p screen then yes you should be able to see some of the differences. If it's across the room from a 720p/768p set then probably not.

So when mpeg-2 is lousy compared to vc-1 then the comparison is valid and whole threads are made to point out every flaw, but when vc-1 falls short of avc we should consider viewing conditions and whether or not the improvements matter? Yeah, right.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #659 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 03:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 98
touche!

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #660 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 03:51 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Wow - just wow

VC1 is competing here with AVC, where AVC has 58% more bits. That is a HUGE bitrate advantage.

Frankly, I expected to see a huge advantage to the AVC version here... but YET... the VC1 version looks almost IDENTICAL.

It makes me wonder how they would look if the AVC version only had a 29% bitrate advantage, half of the 58% here. I think the AVC version is NOT 58% better, so it seems that VC1 has made MUCH better use of the bandwidth here...

Here are some detail sections blown up 200% with Lanczos (to preserve any encoded details) to show how they are comparing - just remember that for 58% more bits, on what was SUPPOSEDLY an equivalent codec (AVC), that VC1 is certainly matching the PQ.

BD AVC on left - HD DVD VC1 on Right:







A VERY impressive performance by VC1 against AVC with 58% more horsepower given to it...
rdjam is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Software Media Discussion

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off